Jump to content
Pro Wrestling Only

Current WWE


Smack2k

Recommended Posts

I think that's just the reality of wrestling now. Because of the way inside information travels on the Internet, I think the element of people responding a certain way because they know they are supposed to is fading and will be completely gone eventually. In a perfect world, it's not the fanbase that's pulling the strings; instead, they are being conditioned to want certain things the promoter wants to give them, then the promoter delivers them and they're satisfied. But I don't think people respond well anymore when they know someone is chosen to be a top star. They want to be the ones doing the choosing. It's a new form of populism that has spilled into wrestling that was also brought on by WWE breaking the trust of their fans that in the end, there will be a happy ending.

 

I'll just add this, though. Take it with a grain of salt (just like everything else in this post) because it's just a theory, but if they were building Daniel Bryan up for a title win at Wrestlemania 31, what is more effective -- leaking that he's the planned Royal Rumble winner and is expected to headline Wrestlemania, or leaking that the company really wants someone else in that spot to start a grassroots pull for him again? It's a new type of work that I don't even know how to fully describe because it's rooted in truth. But I do think there is some manipulation going on right now with the news that is leaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The thing is though the populism deal started with Austin in 1997 and Vince himself has fully acknowledged that....it's the fact that they are so staunch in their ways now that is the problem but back in 1997 they were #2 behind WCW. The lack of competition means they can do what they want when they want because they are the only game in town at that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems a tad disrespectful to the business.

The fans don't owe the business. Maybe if the business wasn't openly hostile towards the fans, the fans would give them a little more leeway in return, but that's probably never going to happen again in our lifetimes barring a miracle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is though the populism deal started with Austin in 1997 and Vince himself has fully acknowledged that....it's the fact that they are so staunch in their ways now that is the problem but back in 1997 they were #2 behind WCW. The lack of competition means they can do what they want when they want because they are the only game in town at that level.

 

To me, one of the biggest differences between then and now is that now, the heat goes to the decision makers, not the wrestler who did the deed. That's why HHH and Stephanie are so effective in their current roles, even if people aren't happy that they came back. Batista was an exception, but Batista is also a star with a really great smarmy persona and it was the perfect storm. I don't think that type of heat transfers to Seth Rollins no matter how good the booking is, partially because Seth isn't as good of a performer as Batista (that's probably a controversial opinion), but also because I don't think people see Seth as one of the bad guys in the underlying story of WWE that isn't played out explicitly in storylines every week. If they want to get him to the next level, it's about time we get some rumors of him badmouthing Dolph Ziggler to management or sucking up to HHH to keep his spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it's about time we get some rumors of him badmouthing Dolph Ziggler to management or sucking up to HHH to keep his spot.

 

 

 

Rollins seems like too much of a nice guy on twitter. He just apologized to fans for missing a house show. Yeah he needs to start burying guys and going to the gym with Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's just the reality of wrestling now. Because of the way inside information travels on the Internet, I think the element of people responding a certain way because they know they are supposed to is fading and will be completely gone eventually. In a perfect world, it's not the fanbase that's pulling the strings; instead, they are being conditioned to want certain things the promoter wants to give them, then the promoter delivers them and they're satisfied. But I don't think people respond well anymore when they know someone is chosen to be a top star. They want to be the ones doing the choosing. It's a new form of populism that has spilled into wrestling that was also brought on by WWE breaking the trust of their fans that in the end, there will be a happy ending.

 

WWE brought this on with all the focus on social media efforts. You brought the fans in close and gave them a voice. The problem is once you elevate and acknowledge the voice of the fans you now have to refocus your efforts to appease them (within reason) because the viral nature of social platforms can crush you in a instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles mentioned decision makers getting heat.....the last time one of the decision makers wasn't an on-air heel personality was 1997 as well. That is crazy....we are at over 17 years straight of having the heel owner/general manager gimmick run the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles mentioned decision makers getting heat.....the last time one of the decision makers wasn't an on-air heel personality was 1997 as well. That is crazy....we are at over 17 years straight of having the heel owner/general manager gimmick run the show.

That seems about right and is complete and utter bullshit.

 

No other move would freshen up the product then removing the on air authority figure. Put someone in the Jack Tunney role who shows up no more than 5 times a year and it would look like a brand new show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other move would freshen up the product then removing the on air authority figure. Put someone in the Jack Tunney role who shows up no more than 5 times a year and it would look like a brand new show.

 

 

You'd think that would make the most sense given WWE is a corporate entity like other sporting leagues who have commissioners, disciplinary boards, rules boards, etc.

 

Why not have a guy like Arn Anderson be the Commissioner or move Regal back to the main roster as the Commissioner. This has ways to completely refocus efforts back to coming up with real creative ways to do booking vice the "Evil Authority" crap...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles mentioned decision makers getting heat.....the last time one of the decision makers wasn't an on-air heel personality was 1997 as well. That is crazy....we are at over 17 years straight of having the heel owner/general manager gimmick run the show.

 

What about Foley in 2000 or Teddy Long on Smackdown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Foley was humiliated by Vince and Stephanie in an angle on Raw in late 2000 and never really got any revenge. A huge part of that obviously was him turning down the match with Vince at Mania 17 but the point is that even when babyfaces were running things the heel decision makers always seem to gain power in the end. Long was in charge when SD became basically angle free with Vince not paying any attention. Steph was basically a tweener in 02/03 with a slight leaning towards face but then Vince returned as a heel and the show became all about them. So even when faces have a little bit of power they usually go right back to heels. Look what just happened

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Charles mentioned decision makers getting heat.....the last time one of the decision makers wasn't an on-air heel personality was 1997 as well. That is crazy....we are at over 17 years straight of having the heel owner/general manager gimmick run the show.

 

What about Foley in 2000 or Teddy Long on Smackdown?

 

 

Yeah but a McMahon was always around in a prominent on-air role somewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The thing is though the populism deal started with Austin in 1997 and Vince himself has fully acknowledged that....it's the fact that they are so staunch in their ways now that is the problem but back in 1997 they were #2 behind WCW. The lack of competition means they can do what they want when they want because they are the only game in town at that level.

 

To me, one of the biggest differences between then and now is that now, the heat goes to the decision makers, not the wrestler who did the deed. That's why HHH and Stephanie are so effective in their current roles, even if people aren't happy that they came back. Batista was an exception, but Batista is also a star with a really great smarmy persona and it was the perfect storm. I don't think that type of heat transfers to Seth Rollins no matter how good the booking is, partially because Seth isn't as good of a performer as Batista (that's probably a controversial opinion), but also because I don't think people see Seth as one of the bad guys in the underlying story of WWE that isn't played out explicitly in storylines every week. If they want to get him to the next level, it's about time we get some rumors of him badmouthing Dolph Ziggler to management or sucking up to HHH to keep his spot.

 

 

I think this is inevitably what happens when you present yourself as a reality show that everyone knows is fake (and such a major part of the fandom is knowing the real story about, rather than the narrative they try to sell us), rather than a self-contained fictional world. It's not like the heat goes onto George R. R. Martin when someone gets killed on Game of Thrones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't watch this week's RAW and, based on what I've read, I'm really glad but...Harper vs. Rowan happened?

 

Good god - I know that they may have interacted a bit at Survivor Series, but there was a time, less than a year ago, when I remember writing in a PPV review that there was MONEY in these two squaring off, that these two monsters finally colliding could be a *moment.*

 

Now, that was probably a bit hyperbolic and written at the peak of their feud with the Usos, when the two teams were consistently presenting great outings (and possible MOTNs), but I still think the WWE could have had a *minor* moment if these two were to have had a stand-off during the Rumble, even if just for 30 seconds or so in the middle.

 

But like nearly every potentially-interesting pairing that the WWE could reasonably have as a strong midcard feud to help sell Network specials, they gave it to us on Monday on a show that has been widely disparaged. That kinda sucks for Harper and Rowan, who, in a more protected spot, on a better show, could have probably got a huge crowd response for something as simple as a staredown (again, it might have happened at Survivor Series, I don't remember, but it could happen a half dozen times and probably still get a big reaction each time).

 

The lack of restraint in WWE's current product is just so frustrating. As Punk once said, McMahon is a millionaire who should be a billionaire and while the particular example above is a frivolous, minute one, it is one of a hundred that can be thought of and those hundred add up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I think a mass strike would be a cool angle, then I remember they did that with HHH before and he said that he'd just bring a broom to the ring and put on a better show.

 

Loss, we have a "Triple H is a Douchebag" thread :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...